The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply |

The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply

We’ve never been much of a fan of Chuck Hagel, the former U.S. senator of Nebraska tapped by President Obama two years ago to become secretary of Defense. And his performance at his confirmation hearing in early 2013 — “He stumbled. He mumbled. He dissembled,” we opined at the time — only affirmed the overriding sense of bumfuzzlement that he so often projected.

How ironic, then, that it was Mr. Hagel’s frustrating expressions of a lack of clarity in the Obama administration’s foreign policy that appear to have, at least in part, led to his “resignation” on Monday.

Surely the final indignity for the rudderless administration came in an interview last week with Charlie Rose for PBS. Hagel pretty much threw Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden under the bus in noting how he and top Pentagon brass were “worried” and “concerned” about the direction of the military. And it was more than implied that the president had not taken steps to prepare American armed forces for future ISIS-like challenges.

It was a rare spot-on assessment for Hagel. But no administration could tolerate such rank-breaking, no matter how accurate.

Thus, the search is on for a new Defense secretary. A number of names have been floated. But it’s pretty clear — and concomitantly sad and dangerous for the nation — that “toady” will be at the top of the qualification criteria.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.